Global Warming: Oops

August 12, 2005 Errors Cited in Assessing Climate Data By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Some scientists who question whether human-caused global warming poses a threat have long pointed to records that showed the atmosphere’s lowest layer, the troposphere, had not warmed over the last two decades and had cooled in the tropics.

Now two independent studies have found errors in the complicated calculations used to generate the old temperature records, which involved stitching together data from thousands of weather balloons lofted around the world and a series of short-lived weather satellites.

A third study shows that when the errors are taken into account, the troposphere actually got warmer. Moreover, that warming trend largely agrees with the warmer surface temperatures that have been recorded and conforms to predictions in recent computer models.

The three papers were published yesterday in the online edition of the journal Science.

The scientists who developed the original troposphere temperature records from satellite data, John R. Christy and Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, conceded yesterday that they had made a mistake but said that their revised calculations still produced a warming rate too small to be a concern.

“Our view hasn’t changed,” Dr. Christy said. “We still have this modest warming.”

Other climate experts, however, said that the new studies were very significant, effectively resolving a puzzle that had been used by opponents of curbs on heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

“These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models,” said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.

Ken,

This is not going to make a difference to the groups that simply want to ignore the mounting evidence. No amount of increasing temperatures, increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, and increasing volatile weather is going to even give these people a moment of pause. It’s simply a matter of something between faith and being able to drive a truck through the benefit of doubt.

It’s larger than just global warming. It’s simply a war on the notion of science and knowledge. We’re devolving away from rigorous scientific inquiry and standards, and falling towards this blind agreement with figures who have no scientific or intellectual background, but political power. It’s a deeply sad statement about our society, which some people keep insisting must be the best in the world, without exerting any effort in trying to keep us there.

To be perfectly blunt, I’m waiting for groups to start challenging whether smoking causes lung cancer. Because if you’re going to apply the standards they use for global warming to cancer, you could never prove that anything “causes” cancer, because cancer is such a complex disorder involving various systems in the body.

Of course, it’s intellectually fallacious, but that never stopped anybody. It’s like Tom Cruise’s character, Vincent, in the movie “Collateral.”

Max: You killed him?
Vincent: No, I shot him. Bullets and the fall killed him.

I think it’s better to err on the side of caution, especially on things as important as the climate of the earth. If you screw it up, there may be no going back.

I think the problem is bigger than that.

The problems in the environment take a while to become obvious, by which time they’ve built up steam and momentum, making them even more difficult to solve. Because there’s a lag between action and reaction, that gives doubters the ability to deny causality, despite mounting evidence.

The other problem is that the environment shows characteristics of having tipping points, where small changes cause drastic impacts, not gradual impacts. Examples of this include the melting of the permafrost and polar ice once the temperature rises beyond a threshold point. In Siberia, apparently a gigantic peat bog in the permafrost is melting because its reached some threshold temperature, releasing huge amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.

Anybody who reads about chaos theory can understand tipping points - systems are dynamic and often have large consequences from small changes. But that may be too complicated to explain to people who want to deny to the grave.

This still doesn’t prove that any warming is human caused. The world is a huge complicated system that has been heating and cooling since it’s inception. I think it is pretty arrogant to assume that we humans can have that much influence on a system that has been operating on such a large scale for such a long time.

Ummmmm Sid, we’ve cut down two thirds of the world’s rain forests which are the earth’s lungs…these forests process atmospheric CO2 and generate O2.

How can you possibly think that man is not having a global impact on the weather and the air we breathe? Tell that to the people of Malaysia who can’t breathe the air in their country right now because of forest burning by farmers in Indonesia.

Wake up and smell the smoke.

Interesting conjecture, but still no proof.

Don’t worry, if we make armageddon happen in our time, revelations will come true and we’ll have rapture and won’t have to worry about little problems like global warming, running out of oil, or raising taxes to pay for this federal government spending spree.

No, it proves that the troposphere is warming.

Other data, from temperature data to CO2 atmospheric data, to ozone data, shows that the current change has been the fastest for the last ~400 thousand years.

You can argue that it doesn’t “prove” anything, but to ignore known greenhouse processes, and our obvious and accounted output of greenhouse gases would be pretty desperate. Your argument is based on a very narrow loophole - the environment is so vast and complicated that it would be nearly impossible to “prove” anything about it definitively enough for some. But the correlations are pretty difficult to ignore, and frankly, extremely hazardous to do so.

As I said above, it’s like arguing that cigarette smoking doesn’t cause cancer. You could make that argument plausibly, but you would be basing it on our inability to fully understand cancer, and not on the overwhelming statistical data that associates the two phenomenon on a non-spurious basis. Yet the only people I know making that argument are with the Tobacco Institute. Why is that?

How would you explain the temperature changes, and our historically high concentrations of known greenhouse gases? Or is your answer a shrug of the shoulders and “who knows?” or is it “I don’t need to. You need to prove that there is some relationship.” Perhaps you are right, but that doesn’t excuse from having to consider some plausible reason for that relationship.

If a person refuses to even entertain the possibility that global warming is real and that it is being caused by man then the proof you are asking for doesn’t exist. You’ll always question every indicator, every study, every piece of evidence and close your mind to the troubling truth you’d rather not contemplate.

Bush Republicans crack me up…they’ll take a couple of grainy photos of an old RV in the desert and some pipes in a warehouse as proof that Saddam has WMDs primed and ready to attack us, but you’ll ignore mountains of cold hard facts showing our contribution to the warming of the planet.

You believe what you want (or are told) to believe and no evidence or lack thereof will convince you otherwise. If Bush says Saddam has WMDs, you believe. If he says global warming is a myth, you believe. If he says the earth is 10,000 years old and was created in less than a week, you believe.

If he released a statement tomorrow saying that the earth might in fact be flat and that we should teach flat earth theory to our kids, you’d probably find that 50% of America would suddenly become flat earthers.

I’m beginning to think you’re all part of a big cult or something.

(that last comment is a joke…sorta)

Don’t worry, if we make armageddon happen in our time, revelations will come true and we’ll have rapture and won’t have to worry about little problems like global warming, running out of oil, or raising taxes to pay for this federal government spending spree.

Thank you, James Watt.

Other data, from temperature data to CO2 atmospheric data, to ozone data, shows that the current change has been the fastest for the last ~400 thousand years.

I found an interesting article (and not by crackpots) on the history of rapid climate change at the below website. I don’t think that the rate of change we are experiencing now is as fast as has been seen to occur in the past, based on ice cores from Greenland and backed up with other data (note the underlined sentence below). Let me caveat that with this: That does not mean that humans are not responsible for climatic change, indeed, scientists are worried that small perturbations of the system could cause a rapid shift in temperature. I did find another article, however, that showed just how much change has been made in the last 40 or so years in CO2 concentrations, and the change is not great…maybe 2.5 parts per million…if there are any climatic scientists out there, I would be curious if a change in CO2 concentrations of that magnitude had ever been correlated in the past with climate change.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/rapid.htm

Swings of temperature that scientists in the 1950s believed to take tens of thousands of years, in the 1970s to take thousands of years, and in the 1980s to take hundreds of years, were now found to take only decades. Ice core analysis by Dansgaard's group, confirmed by the Americans' parallel hole, showed rapid oscillations of temperature repeatedly at irregular intervals throughout the last glacial period. ***<u>Greenland had sometimes warmed a shocking 7°C within a span of less than 50 years.</u>*** For one group of American scientists on the ice in Greenland, the "moment of truth” struck on a single day in midsummer 1992 as they analyzed a cylinder of ice, recently emerged from the drill hole, that came from the last years of the Younger Dryas. They saw an obvious change in the ice, visible within three snow layers, that is, scarcely three years! The team analyzing the ice was first excited, then sobered — their view of how climate could change had shifted irrevocably. The European team reported seeing a similar step within at most five years. "The general circulation  in the Northern Hemisphere must have shifted dramatically," Dansgaard’s group eventually concluded.<u>(56*)</u>     The record of dust found in the ice certainly suggested that a wide region had been involved, but might the change have been restricted to parts of the world near Greenland? The first hints of the answer came from oceanographers, who had been hunting out seabed zones where bioturbation by burrowing worms did not smear any record of rapid change. In some places the sediments accumulated very rapidly, while in others, the seawater lacked enough oxygen to sustain life. The first results, from the Norwegian Sea in 1992, confirmed that the abrupt changes seen in Greenland ice cores were not confined to Greenland alone. Later work on seabed cores from the California coast to the Arabian Sea, and on chemical changes recorded in cave stalagmites from Switzerland to China, confirmed that the oscillations found in the Greenland ice had been felt throughout the Northern Hemisphere. Meanwhile, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, improved carbon-14 techniques gave the first accurate dates for sediments containing pollen and other carbon-bearing materials at locations ranging from Japan to Tierra del Fuego. Good dates finally allowed correlation of many geological records with the Greenland ice. The results suggested that the Younger Dryas events had affected climates around the world. The extent and nature of the perturbation was controversial. But scientists were increasingly persuaded that abrupt climate shifts could have global scope, even if they affected different places differently — colder here and warmer there, wetter here and drier there.<u>(57)</u>     Could such drastic variations happen not only during glacial times, but also in warm periods like the present? That was the most interesting question in 1992, as the European drillers penetrated clear through the last glacial epoch to the preceding "Eemian" period, more than 100,000 years back — a time similar to our own, or even warmer. There, too, they saw dramatic shifts. However, further analysis cast that into doubt. The layers from the Eemian warm period were down near bedrock, distorted by ice flow. Comparison of the two groups' cores gave divergent results. Again scientists had benefitted from drilling parallel cores. But this time the lesson, valuable if unwelcome, was that they must do more work. 

Interesting article on Antarctica…

http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-science/2002-01-18-wais-thicker.htm

Seems that some of the ice is thickening, and that temperatures have dropped in areas.

Spot

If I understand your clip correctly, the article is stating that temperature has changed at rapid clips in the past, sometimes more rapidly than today.

I don’t dispute that at all. In fact, it makes perfect sense. What the article seems to suggest is along the lines of the tipping point I described above, and other articles I’ve read, some in archaeology, describing how quickly some civilizations have seemed to disappear, often because of rather rapid climate change. My point is not that our current temperature is changing the fastest ever. It is that if we are not careful and at least cognizant, there is a decent chance we may speed ourselves to a tipping point, after which we cannot reverse the effects. What has been changing is the tropospheric temperature, as well as seawater temps, which seems to be breaking off nice sized pieces of the Ross Ice Shelf.

More specifically, the one piece of data that is unprecedented is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. It is now at 379 ppm, higher than recorded in the last 400,000 years, which encompasses several climate cycles. Moreover, this particular statistic has increased at the fastest rate ever, over the last 50 years. My problem is that I think it would be completely ignorant and simply fantasy to think that for these two facts and our pollution of the atmosphere, in conjunction with known greenhouse dynamics, to be merely coincidence. Coincidence is being hit by a car, or lightning striking a bird in midair. This took some time to happen, and didn’t appear to happen with the same velocity in our less industrial times, so I think coincidence is a luxury we don’t have.

So, just to make sure I understand…

In the past, there was rapid climate change, on the order of 7 degrees C in 50 years…but without an accompanying rise in CO2 levels.

Today, we have rapid climate change (although see my post above regarding Antarctica), and rising CO2 levels.

Isn’t it equally possible that whatever caused the rapid climate change in the past is also causing the rapid rise today?

Don’t get me wrong…I don’t discount that all the crap that man has put into the atmosphere could be having some sort of effect. I just wonder if the evidence is as cut and dried as some scientists would like us to believe.

No, I think you have a point. I think it is possible. But the CO2 levels have risen, and we have a pretty clear idea what that can do to a closed system.

As for rapid climate change, I think you are correct. But the problem is this - my feeling is that scientists, especially with that long a period to study it, would be able to come up with another cause that is endogenous, rather than man-made. That said, that’s not a certainty, and is to some extent an article of faith on my part. But I believe that past rapid changes have been results of systems moving beyond tipping points, resulting in rapid change which has doomed some ancient civilizations.

The problem is this - what if we are accelerating ourselves to some tipping point? What do we do then? And do we need to accelerate things beyond what would naturally occur? I’m not suggesting that we are going to manage to extinct ourselves. Our technology has advanced beyond the point where that is realistic. However, we can certainly do enough damage that a significant percentage of the planet could have difficulty surviving, with the rest suffering a meaningful diminishment of quality of life. I mean, significant climate change could easily change rainfall patterns to result in large-scale famine conditions. This is what the Pentagon is currently wargaming if the Atlantic conveyor belt suddenly stops, as they believe is possible with desalination of the oceans.

I’m not saying science currently has all the answers. I think there is still a lot of work to do. But the signs are there, and it would be naive to think that we can simply pump out as much carbon from the ground into the atmosphere and expect the planet to remain in an optimal habitable state, which has supported our rapid technological ascent. I know the objectivist view is that everything exists to serve man, but I think that relies heavily on technology and our ability to shape our environments, and I don’t think we can keep making that bet blithely.

Don’t disagree with anything you wrote. I guess I am pessimistic that we will be able to really reduce CO2 emissions anytime soon due to the rapidly growing economies of China and India, which is why I thought Kyoto was doomed from the get-go…Europe and the US could do all sorts of things to cut down on CO2, and that would probably not amount to much as 2 billion people in those 2 countries started driving and using fossil fuels at an enormous rate as their economies continue to expand.

I think you’re right. The CO2 levels aren’t going to go down by themselves, and we’re kidding ourselves by thinking that pumping all of that into the atmosphere is not going to have a bad outcome. But given the growth of the world’s population, and our rapidly increasing energy needs as more of the world becomes industrial, I don’t know what the answer is.

I think the likely outcome in the medium term is a bit of misery. Then the lesser industrialized countries become wealthier, therefore having fewer children, and ultimately placing more of an economic value on clean air/water and a stable environment. And I think at that point a stronger consensus can be reached where we actually acknowledge the problem and make progress. But I think the interim period will be fraught with hazards, and will entail a bit of suffering for many.

Try these three articles on GW from the New Yorker - its a three-part article in three pieces, and all told rather long, but encompasses most of what we’ve been discussing. It’s well worth the time, and typical of New Yorker pieces, well-written and more importantly, well-researched, as opposed to being a Newsmax special, which is just a bunch of reconstituted crap from corners of the internet.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/050425fa_fact3

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/050502fa_fact3

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/050509fa_fact3

Spot:

I’ve had this discussion on this subject before.

What no one can explain is that in past cycles on 4 different occasions CO2 levels have reached similar highs as the current. Man had no impact on past cycles. No one can answer what is different now than in the past when man wasn’t around.

Figures show that rainforest depletion is hovering at about 7%. Think of two thirds, go on a trip to Brazil and you will see that two thirds isn’t even in the ballpark. With US replanting at a 4 to 1 ratio, there are plenty of trees. Come here to lovely MN, a state that naturally had very little trees, billiions of them now. Emotionally I can’t win this argument, fear always wins. When I was in school, there was not to be one drop of water left to drink by 1980–oops. Sure the Globe is warming, has been since the Ice Age, which was very hot before that happened, all without a single factory or automobile. Do you realize the global food ouput increase if we could average the worst case scenario global warming? Just 5 more degrees average (which is upper threshold global warming figures) could extend corn and wheat growth hundreds of miles north into canada.